I think there is a difference between the knowledge of good and evil and the good and evil acts.What I mean is if we dont know what is good and evil , does that stop us from acting evil ? What does GOD want ? That we become perfect or that we cant be blamed ? I dont know why but sometimes I feel that evil is necessary in GODÃ‚Â´s plan.There is a role for evil.ThatÃ‚Â´s why HE created the material universe, because evil cant exist in HIS presence.So, HE created a place where evil may exist for some purpose..

I think the point is evil is not allowed in the final Heaven, so how will you do with humans with their freewill while they are in Heaven. There should be a crafting process that those humans remain in Heaven will never sin (even when we speak general and not absolute).

evil is a foot stool, when we step on it we reach Heaven, when we fail to we fall and yet become other foot stools.

So yes, I do think that the presence of evil is part of His plan. While Eden and earth are strategically needed. And God is blameless as He gave us Eden in the first place to say that we are not fit for Heaven without passing through our Earthly probational period.

But then there would be no free will at all. God had to give them the ability to obey Him, or disobey Him. I know, lame answer. To me this is one of those difficult concepts that we may never fully understand while in this world.

I dont know why but sometimes I feel that evil is necessary in GODÃ‚Â´s plan.There is a role for evil.ThatÃ‚Â´s why HE created the material universe, because evil cant exist in HIS presence.So, HE created a place where evil may exist for some purpose..

I'm not sure if I'd say evil was "necessary", perhaps it is better said that evil is an "unfortunate consequence" of creating free-will creatures. I know, lame answer.

Its true what Fred says that there are verses in Scripture that would appear to back both predestination and free will but the verses for free will seems to have the right answers for me. So I come to a very worldy two words and its the "gut feeling" I have that free will is right and its because of three things. 1. Preaching the gospel to those who can never be saved seems to me futile and without meaning. 2. Those people who land up in hell are there because they chose to reject Christ not because God put them there, and finally 3. The fantastic conversion of the thief on the cross proves that even those on the brink of going to hell can in crying out to Jesus escape that fate. Think about this: If it was through predestination by God that the thief only accepted Jesus it would totally rob this event of such a wonderfull conversion. Here was a man who saw Jesus in torment being insulted and mocked not in anyway looking like the Son Of God He proclaimed to be, yet this man accepted Him as His Saviour. It must have brought joy to our Saviours heart that even there on the cross in such pain and torment this thief would recognise Him for who He really was. Im afraid predestination takes all that away if he had no choice in the matter. In Christ

So everyone knows up front where I am coming from,(I) I believe the Bible is clear that works cannot produce salvation, that grace is a gift undeserved and unearned.(II)I also believe man has free will, but the only Ã¢â‚¬Å“choiceÃ¢â‚¬Â he makes in salvation is by accepting GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s free gift (Eph 2:9).

Mr. Fred,

I must humbly say that your phrase above seems to me a contradiction.

Surely both cannot be true.

Is it of works, or of grace ?

(I):I am with you here.

(II):Now here you say something about "choice" and salvation by a man using his own "works" as in accepting the gift from God.You also claim this as to being said in Eph 2:9

Here is what I see from the vs below and above it.

Ephesians 28 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

IMO

This clearly states affirms that our God is the ALL KNOWING God as seen in the scriptures, and that BEFOREHAND God prepared our salvation.

"That we should walk in them" is refering directly to the plans the text is talking about.

As in following the beaten path that has been layed before us.

FreeWill

I think this Worldy idea is what threatens our true knowledge of Gods awesome being.

I like to use the Icecream Bowl parable.

If I set a bowl of IceCream in front of my 2 yr. old son, and also a bowl of brussel sprouts, do I not already know which one he is going to choose ?

And if he does choose the brussel sprouts, did me knowing in anyway interupt is free will/choice to choose ?

Of course it didn't.

Just as God knows EVERYTHING, our own choices to choose are merely a fleshly way of thinking.

This is not to be confused with the whole "let go and Let God" argument either please.

Its true what Fred says that there are verses in Scripture that would appear to back both predestination and free will but the verses for free will seems to have the right answers for me. So I come to a very worldy two words and its the "gut feeling" I have that free will is right and its because of three things. 1. Preaching the gospel to those who can never be saved seems to me futile and without meaning. 2. Those people who land up in hell are there because they chose to reject Christ not because God put them there, and finally 3. The fantastic conversion of the thief on the cross proves that even those on the brink of going to hell can in crying out to Jesus escape that fate. Think about this: If it was through predestination by God that the thief only accepted Jesus it would totally rob this event of such aÃ‚Â wonderfull conversion. Here was a man who saw Jesus in torment being insulted and mocked not in anyway looking like the Son Of God He proclaimed to be, yet this man accepted Him as His Saviour. It must have brought joy to our Saviours heart that even there on the cross in such pain and torment this thief would recognise Him for who He really was. Im afraid predestination takes all that away if he had no choice in the matter.Ã‚Â In Christ

1:How do you know who is saved and who is not ?

2:Scripture reference ?

3:The theif could have very easily already been in the Book of Life. This could have easily been the theifs testimony of going his whole life without believing, only to have to see the face of Jesus on the cross.

It's nothing more than the will of God being acted out for others to be able to observe and learn from.

Quite honestly believing in Free Will also comes with the thought that,

God Doesn't know Eveything.

In return, it is US who does not know everything. This is why we continue to preach, go to church and try to turn others towards Christ. For we do not know who is called and who is not. Therefore we must live the will of God which is to worship him.

Its true what Fred says that there are verses Im afraid predestination takes all that away if he had no choice in the matter.Ã‚Â

1:How do you know who is saved and who is not ?

2:Scripture reference ?

3:The theif could have very easily already been in the Book of Life. This could have easily been the theifs testimony of going his whole life without believing, only to have to see the face of Jesus on the cross.

It's nothing more than the will of God being acted out for others to be able to observe and learn from.

Quite honestly believing in Free Will also comes with the thought that,

God Doesn't know Eveything.

In return, it is US who does not know everything. This is why we continue to preach, go to church and try to turn others towards Christ. For we do not know who is called and who is not. Therefore we must live the will of God which is to worship him.

John Calvin & John Wesley did not disagree on Tulips. From what I read they more or less disagreed on the definition of terms.

My Calvanstic defintion of Free Will is best seen here in the P section of the TULIP.

Calvin Perseverance of the Saints - Since God has decreed the elect, and they cannot resist grace, they are unconditionally and eternally secure in that election.

Wesley Assurance and Security - There is security in GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s grace that allows assurance of salvation, but that security is in relation to continued faithfulness; we can still defiantly reject God.

Of course we can, BUTHow do we know that, me rejecting God was not in the will to begin with ? Was God suprised by my rejection ? Did he not know I would reject ?

Yes He most certainly did know, but that did not affect my Calvinistic "Free Will/Choice" on whether or not I would reject him.

You see the whole free will issue is simply used as a way for us to act out our part in the will of God. It is a human quality that allows us to function.

1 Sam. 15:1110 Now the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying, 11 Ã¢â‚¬Å“I greatly regret that I have set up Saul as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed My commandments.Ã¢â‚¬Â

Was God suprised here by Saul's actions ?Was God Not in control of Saul ?Did Saul step outside the Will of God ?

I think not.

The word regret is used to describe the text. God indeed DID NOT REGRET. It was completely a part of His Will written before time.This is written to explain in human terms what is going on and what is to be done. Otherwise how would we ever know God if not for being to understand him through human ways ?

So yes we have a choice, but that choice is an act, that keeps us as humans in an understanding of Gods Will and our purpose. Which is completly to just worship God and ALL that we do.

So everyone knows up front where I am coming from,(I) I believe the Bible is clear that works cannot produce salvation, that grace is a gift undeserved and unearned. (II)I also believe man has free will, but the only Ã¢â‚¬Å“choiceÃ¢â‚¬Â he makes in salvation is by accepting GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s free gift (Eph 2:9).

Mr. Fred,

I must humbly say that your phrase above seems to me a contradiction.

Surely both cannot be true.

Since a gift that is given freely cannot possibly be earned, there is no contradiction. Have you ever been with a relative or friend who insisted on paying for dinner but you refused to let them, and they were insulted? I have an uncle like this. I learned over time to let him pay whenever he insisted so I wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t hurt his feelings or cause a ruckus. Consider the difference if he buys dinner for you mowing his yard. You had an agreement (covenant) to mow his yard for him for dinner, and no one feels awkward when he later pays for dinner. You come over the next week and he offers to take you to dinner for no good reason and insists on paying. You now feel awkward and insist on paying half. Why? You know you didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t do anything to earn his charity, so by golly you are going to pay your way (in other words, your pride is getting in the way). If you accept his gift (grace), itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a sort of humbling release of your pride and all you can offer is a thank you. If you offer to mow his yard afterwards, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll insult him (like Christians do to God when the try to attach works to grace).

[Eph 2:8]This clearly states affirms that our God is the ALL KNOWING God as seen in the scriptures, and that BEFOREHAND God prepared our salvation.

This passage could also easily be interpreted that God prepared the Path of our salvation, via Jesus Christ. I submit it canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t possibly be saying that God picked those who are to be saved beforehand since too many scriptures contradict this.

I have a challenge for you going forward to keep score on who appeals to the plain, straightforward rendering of scripture and who appeals to allegory and anthropomorphisms to explain away difficult and contradictory Biblical text.

1:How do you know who is saved and who is not ?

You missed FallanÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s point. Why should we brother to witness to anyone if they have already been predestined to be saved or sent to hell?

Fallan: 2. Those people who land up in hell are there because they chose to reject Christ not because God put them there

Quite honestly believing in Free Will also comes with the thought that,

God Doesn't know Eveything.

God knows everything knowable. God doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know who Santa Claus or the fairy god mother is. Take a look at the pinned Openness Theology debate for more details. Even if you reject Openness theology (most Christians do) and think God Ã¢â‚¬Å“seesÃ¢â‚¬Â into the future instead of carving it out as it happens, it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mean He made that person accept the gift. Seeing and making are two different things, so itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a non-sequitur.

John Calvin & John Wesley did not disagree on Tulips. From what I read they more or less disagreed on the definition of terms.

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d love to see where you read that. Wesley completely rejected the TULIP.

Of course we can, BUTHow do we know that, me rejecting God was not in the will to begin with ?

Because the Bible clearly tells us it is not GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s will that people reject Him. I would like your explanation of the following two verses:

Isaiah 5:4 What more could have been done to My vineyard that I have not done in it? Who knows? I waited for it to yield grapes, but it yielded rotten grapes.

Luke 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!

10 Now the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying, 11 Ã¢â‚¬Å“I greatly regret that I have set up Saul as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed My commandments.Ã¢â‚¬Â

Was God suprised here by Saul's actions ?Was God Not in control of Saul ?Did Saul step outside the Will of God ?

I think not.

The word regret is used to describe the text. God indeed DID NOT REGRET. It was completely a part of His Will written before time.

Are you keeping score, because here is one in the Ã¢â‚¬Å“explain awayÃ¢â‚¬Â category. The problem will only get worse for you, since there are many, many more just like this. For example:

1 Sam 13:13-14 And Samuel said to Saul ,"You have done foolishly. You have not kept the commandment of the LORD your God, which He commanded you. For now the LORD would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. But now your kingdom shall not continue.

Are you again going to say that God didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t really mean what He said and actually wanted Saul to fail? The plain rendering of the text clearly and overwhelmingly supports Saul having a free will choice to follow or reject GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s guidance. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s as clear as it could possibly be.

So yes we have a choice, but that choice is an act, that keeps us as humans in an understanding of Gods Will and our purpose. Which is completly to just worship God and ALL that we do.

Calvinism is an insult to the character of God. I realize this was an offensive statement, but there is one direct way to prove it. In order to defend Calvinism, I ask you do not shy away from the tough questions that the last Calvinist in this thread did: Does God choose before certain babies are conceived that they will be aborted and sent to hell?

As most of us are aware, we all have our own foundation of presuppositions. So I would ask the Lord that both of us be humble in our search for what is it we are trying to say is, and is not the Lord's intentions of his own word.

The Lord has not granted me with a strong understanding of this "Free Will topic", but I feel as if I am very much aware that it is impossible for the God of the Bible to not know something. Omnipresent, Omnipotence, these terms define loosely who God is compared to the way most use them.

John 2:24But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all men,John 13:11For He knew who would betray Him; therefore He said, Ã¢â‚¬Å“You are not all clean.Ã¢â‚¬Â

John 18:4Jesus therefore, knowing all things that would come upon Him, went forward and said to them, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Whom are you seeking?Ã¢â‚¬Â)

1 Corinthians 2:11For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.

1 John 3:20For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.

These are just some of the passages that lead me to believe in the all knowing God.

Since a gift that is given freely cannot possibly be earned, there is no contradiction.

I agree, but from what you just wrote, that doesn't make any sense.

If we have to literaly except it, on our own accord, is that not an act of works done by ourselves ?

It cannot be earned like you said, so what makes us think that we can do anything to accept it ?

Psalm 37:23The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD,And He delights in his way.

Ecclesiastes 7:20For there is not a just man on earth who does good And does not sin.

I have little time today but will definitely continue on in the near future, Lord Willing !

These are just some of the passages that lead me to believe in the all knowing God.

I agree God is all knowing, but does that mean he knows who Santa Claus is? CanÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t you grant that if something isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t knowable, then God canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know it? Another example is that God canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know a square is a triangle, because itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a logical fallacy. There are things God canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t do, such as hate Jesus, because it would be contrary to his attribute of love.

Anything we put on God must deal in reality. We as humans have been trained to believe in time travel because of a tradition that goes back to Greek pagan philosophy. Yet on the surface we admit its Ã¢â‚¬Å“science fictionÃ¢â‚¬Â. IsnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t it at least possible that our traditional understanding that Biblical Ã¢â‚¬Å“time travelÃ¢â‚¬Â is wrong? If you read the Openness Theology debate, you will see that there are many verses in the Bible that contradict the traditional view and instead suggest the future doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t exist until it happens. There is not one single verse you can point to that is a slam dunk that the future does exist. You can only make inferences and speculation. My question to you would be, can God change the future, or is the future already set in stone? I believe God can change the future (see Isaiah 38:1-5)

Psalm 37:23The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD, And He delights in his way.

This verse just as easily fits the free will view. A Ã¢â‚¬Å“goodÃ¢â‚¬Â man is someone who is more willing to do GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s will and therefore allow God to order his steps. But as the next verse shows, he doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t always succeed. V24: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down For the LORD upholds him with His hand.Ã¢â‚¬Â

Ecclesiastes 7:20For there is not a just man on earth who does good And does not sin.

I thought you just said that good men exist and could have his steps ordered by the LORD. Hopefully over time you will see how Calvinism is often self-refuting.

Man is no doubt sinful, and on a spiral that trends downward. But that doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mean that man sins every moment of his life in everything he does. He can occasionally do something good, as the good Samaritan verses prove (and single-handedly refute total depravity).

Sorry I missed it. HereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s something to consider. Do you ever share this little tidbit about Calvinism when sharing theology with anyone? I submit that subconsciously Calvinists know it is wrong to suggest God sends aborted babies to hell so they will never, ever, ever, talk about it unless they are asked. The point is that there should be nothing in the Bible we are ashamed to talk about. We are after all created in GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s image and He puts right & wrong on our heart.

One more time we see that God has purposely raised a non-believer to go straight to hell. Are we to think worldy again and assume that the Pharaoh was not a non-believer as an infant ? Of course he was.

How do you know you wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have said the same thing about Nebachadnezzar had he not later in life turned to the Lord? Pharaoh was an evil man who was given plenty of opportunities to repent and turn to the one True God. God knows our heart and over time will turn us over to depravity if we continually reject him as Pharaoh did (Romans 1:28, 2 Thes 2:11). Also, God didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t harden PharaohÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s heart directly with some sort of angel dust or something Ã¢â‚¬â€œ every time the Bible says God hardened PharaohÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s heart was right after a miracle. Pharaoh didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t like being proven he wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t a god.

Finally, when Paul spoke of the potter and clay in Romans 9, he was quoting the Old Testament:

Jer 18:4-10 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter ; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make. Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter ?" says the LORD. "Look, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

This blows Calvinist heavy artillery in Romans 9 out of the water. Israel was marred in the potters hand, not by what the potter did, but what Israel did! Jeremiah 18 makes this crystal clear.

BTW, as far as I know there isn't a precise "age of accountablility" in the Bible, but it does suggest there is one. For example, in Romans 7:9 Paul was "alive" before he became aware of the law, then he "died" after he became aware of it. This must be referring to spiritual death since Paul didn't die physically.

I agree God is all knowing, but does that mean he knows who Santa Claus is?

Why wouldn't He ?

Either he knows everything, or He doesn't.

CanÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t you grant that if something isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t knowable, then God canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know it? Another example is that God canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know a square is a triangle, because itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a logical fallacy.

Can't you you understand that God is not defined by human terms ?

Logical Fallacy ?

God is not bound by human terms or human thinking, He is NOT completely comprehendable.

Anything we put on God must deal in reality.

Why is that ?

Is God once again bound by science and human beliefs ?

You are trying to define God through a human brain. This is not possible.

My question to you would be, can God change the future, or is the future already set in stone?

I say set in stone.

Jesus's Birth and childhood was known.Matthew 2:15 Hosea 11:1

I thought you just said that good men exist and could have his steps ordered by the LORD.

The only way you can believe that is if you already are assuming that Free Will is possible.

What It says to me is, No man can do Good on his own, and God orders man's footsteps.

I have no clue how you get Free Will out of that.

He can occasionally do something good, as the good Samaritan verses prove (and single-handedly refute total depravity).

Could have not been in the Will of God already ?

Do you ever share this little tidbit about Calvinism when sharing theology with anyone? I submit that subconsciously Calvinists know it is wrong to suggest God sends aborted babies to hell so they will never, ever, ever, talk about it unless they are asked. The point is that there should be nothing in the Bible we are ashamed to talk about.

I also don't go to a a funeral where someone commited Suicide and say, "Well I guess he's burning in Hell "

I feel like we're on two different sides of the aisle here.

How can we both woship the same God of the bible ?

Either God is ALL KNOWING or he isn't.Either God knows the past, present and future or He doesn't.

I have no reason to believe that God does not know the future, when the Bible clearly state that God Knows Everything.

You were right to point out that we both bring in a certain bias, something that is unavoidable. I want to take this moment to reassure you that I am in no way questioning your faith. I have plenty of Calvinist friends who no doubt are Christians. I certainly bring my biases to the table, but often it's from years of studying scripture and years of being wrong and having to change my view many times (before the age of 30, I believed in an old earth, purgatory, some type of individual predestination, etc). So I hope you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t continue with the mindset that this issue is Ã¢â‚¬Å“unresolvableÃ¢â‚¬Â for you. I guess I would pose the following to you. Assume for a moment you are wrong, and you go your whole life teaching a doctrine that turns out to be the worst possible doctrine a Christian could believe. Obviously you would have wished you would have somehow been convinced it was wrong. So why completely close yourself to the possibility you are wrong? The only way to know is to keep Ã¢â‚¬Å“reasoning togetherÃ¢â‚¬Â (Isaiah 1:18) with other Christians on such doctrines.

Now that being said, I acknowledge I will give a certain appearance of a double standard in that I am 100% convinced Calvinism is wrong, but it wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t cause me to stop debating it since it is IMO very important to refute. Also, we all have doctrines that over time and careful study we will become 100% sure of. Some extreme examples include being 100% convinced certain cults like JWs and Mormons are wrong, or within Christiandum that Old Earth theology is wrong. On the other hand there are many doctrines such as openness theology and certain parts of dispensation (that I will start a fresh topic on soon), that I am not 100% convinced of and may never be, or could have my mind changed 180 degrees.

So my stand against Calvinism is firm and I bring no bones about it that I am convinced it is a doctrine of demons that is thoroughly unbiblical. Superficially Calvinism has verses to support it, but when weighed against the entirety of the Bible it falls far short. That is why I wanted you to keep score for yourself how many times your seemingly pro-Calvinism verses were both 1) explained nearly or as equally well from the free-will position, or 2) flat out contradicted by other verses. DonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t you agree any Christian should be concerned if time and time again their position is not consistent with certain scripture verses?

Before I answer your latest post, let me remind readers why I firmly believe Calvinism is a doctrine of demons and IMO the worst possible thing a Christian could believe:

1) The number one reason is that Calvinism provides no single logical reason to evangelize one iota. Satan accomplishes more than he ever really needs to by this one reason alone. The Calvinists only answer is Ã¢â‚¬Å“because Jesus told us toÃ¢â‚¬Â. Oh, OK. 2) It gives us no tangible reason to pray at all. God loves us to pray and wants to work in our lives, Calvinism tells us it is a complete waste of time to hope God will answer a prayer since everything that will happen to us has already been Ã¢â‚¬Å“set in stoneÃ¢â‚¬Â.3) Calvinism paints God as a murderer and a direct creator of evil. Calvinism says that God ordained every single rape and murder that ever occurred. It was all part of GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Ã¢â‚¬Å“planÃ¢â‚¬Â. And to add to this filthy and despicable depiction of God, Calvinism says that before we were conceived God chose us for heaven and hell, so that means God sends certain aborted babies to hell to suffer eternal torment. They typically explain this away by saying Ã¢â‚¬Å“GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s ways are higher than our waysÃ¢â‚¬Â. 4) Calvinism is based on God being completely and utterly immutable. Calvinists love to quote the verses that say God doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t change and say these verses are the bedrock of their entire belief system. Based on this flawed assumption (that BTW is rooted in Greek pagan philosophy), they then claim God has no emotions! This is of coruse refuted by scores of scripture that depict a "Living" God. The Ã¢â‚¬Å“God doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t changeÃ¢â‚¬Â verses only pertain to GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s holy attributes, since there are literally hundreds of verses that say God changes in other ways, such as becoming man! God also says he changed his mind over 100 times in the Bible. Calvinists call these Ã¢â‚¬Å“anthropomorphismsÃ¢â‚¬Â to explain them away. To summarize, Calvinism paints God no differently that the cold stone idols the Living God of Bible forbids and abhors. 5) Calvinism limits GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s sovereignty by denying God the ability to change the future. Their reply is that God set it up that way, despite the scores of scripture that contradict this.

Now to your latest volley.

Fred: I agree God is all knowing, but does that mean he knows who Santa Claus is?

Why wouldn't He ?

Either he knows everything, or He doesn't.

I can certainly understand you rejecting the idea that the future doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t exist until it happens. But youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re the only Christian IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve met to date who canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t at least acknowledge the logic that certain things are not knowable, like the tooth fairy, since the tooth fairy doesn't exist and is a fairytale! Why is this so hard? Here is a question atheists love to pose: Can God create a mountain too big for him to move? It is important that you answer this.

God is not bound by human terms or human thinking, He is NOT completely comprehendable.

I didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢tÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ say he was.

Fred: My question to you would be, can God change the future, or is the future already set in stone?

I say set in stone.

Jesus's Birth and childhood was known.Matthew 2:15 Hosea 11:1

ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a fair answer. There are scores of prophecy in the Bible that were fulfilled in the future. My question to you is, do you grant that it is at least possible that God carved out history as it happened to cause these events to occur? Consider Isaiah 46:11:Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it;

If Calvinism is true and the future was already set in stone, how do you explain verses such as Isaiah 46:11?

Also, you didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t attempt to respond to Isaiah 38:1-5. How do you explain HezekiahÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s prayer for longer life? Was God kidding when he told Hezekiah he was going to soon die?

Fred: I thought you just said that good men exist and could have his steps ordered by the LORD.

The only way you can believe that is if you already are assuming that Free Will is possible.

What It says to me is, No man can do Good on his own, and God orders man's footsteps.

I have no clue how you get Free Will out of that.

I didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t say this verse proves free will. I said free will can easily accommodate it. I already explained how. If you become a believer and recognize you are no longer a slave to the law, God will find it easier to guide (order) your steps.

Fred: He can occasionally do something good, as the good Samaritan verses prove (and single-handedly refute total depravity).

Could have not been in the Will of God already ?

If God made the good Samaritan act as he did, why didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t the Bible include this important piece of information?

Either God is ALL KNOWING or he isn't.Either God knows the past, present and future or He doesn't.

This is a caricature of my position. Of course I believe God knows the past, present, and yes, the future! Where I differ with you is that I submit God knows the future in the sense that He knows what he is going to do. For example, if I was a god, I could proclaim, Ã¢â‚¬Å“The Denver Broncos are going to win the Super Bowl next year!Ã¢â‚¬Â. I would not necessarily need to proclaim this based on my seeing into the future. I could make it happen by many various means. Since I am all knowing, maybe I start by helping Shanahan make the best possible picks in the upcoming draft, and maybe causing the other teams to draft badly. I could cause the wind to blow at a certain time to cause an opponent to miss a game-ending field goal or TD pass. So donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t get me wrong, I believe God Ã¢â‚¬Å“knowsÃ¢â‚¬Â the future in the sense that He has purposed a plan that he will Ã¢â‚¬Å“bring to passÃ¢â‚¬Â (Isa 46:11). What I also believe is that it is wrong to say the future is set in stone since there are literally hundreds of verses that refute such a claim.

My bottom line about the future and how it plays into theology is this: If you believe God can change the future, then our differences are virtually nil, the rest would be mostly semantics. If you believe God has set the future in stone and will not change it, you are likely a Calvinist and need serious help.

Ok, I'm not going to attempt to quote and counter like usual b/c I think something bigger is apparent here.

I'm trying to defend calvinism from what you throw at it, but judging from your lists, I'm not too sure we both are defining Calvinism in the same manner.

I'll get back with you soon

I get this same reaction time and time again from Calvinists, just read the last guy who tried to defend it then vanished (Countic16). ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s as if you guys subconsciously know that there is something seriously wrong with this theology that you frantically try to reevaluate the terms. Countic16 also said I wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t defining the Calvinism he believed in, yet he ended up defending exactly what I said Calvinism represented. BTW, he stumbled on the "God sends aborted babies to hell" and said my argument Ã¢â‚¬Å“wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t fairÃ¢â‚¬Â or was a "low blow" (paraphrase). But this is eactly what Calvinism teaches, as you agreed with.

Trust me, the traditional Calvinist believes everything I have delineated in my list. The first two are merely the logical extensions of Calvinism (that there is no compelling reason to witness or pray). The 3rd (God ordains rape and murder) youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve already admitted to believing. The 4th (God is immutable with no emotions), you have yet to comment on but it is exactly what Calvinism teaches and the first guy in this thread defended (Deacon). Item #5 (the future is set in stone) youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve already admitted to believing. So only item 4 is left. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the bedrock of Calvinism that god is immutable and void of emotion. What say you?

BTW, as far as I know there isn't a precise "age of accountability" in the Bible, but it does suggest there is one. For example, in Romans 7:9 Paul was "alive" before he became aware of the law, then he "died" after he became aware of it. This must be referring to spiritual death since Paul didn't die physically.

I've settled on 20 years old...

NUM 14:28 "Say to them, 'As I live,' says the Lord, 'just as you have spoken in My hearing, so I will surely do to you;NUM 14:29 your corpses shall fall in this wilderness, even all your numbered men, according to your complete number from twenty years old and upward, who have grumbled against Me.NUM 14:30 'Surely you shall not come into the land in which I swore to settle you, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun.NUM 14:31 'Your children, however, whom you said would become a prey-- I will bring them in, and they shall know the land which you have rejected.

NUM 14:28 "Say to them, 'As I live,' says the Lord, 'just as you have spoken in My hearing, so I will surely do to you;NUM 14:29 your corpses shall fall in this wilderness, even all your numbered men, according to your complete number from twenty years old and upward, who have grumbled against Me.NUM 14:30 'Surely you shall not come into the land in which I swore to settle you, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun.NUM 14:31 'Your children, however, whom you said would become a prey-- I will bring them in, and they shall know the land which you have rejected.Terry

Sounds reaonable to me.

Hmm, it just occurred, to me - do you think we would be able to convince parents with teenagers of this?

NUM 14:28 "Say to them, 'As I live,' says the Lord, 'just as you have spoken in My hearing, so I will surely do to you;NUM 14:29 your corpses shall fall in this wilderness, even all your numbered men, according to your complete number from twenty years old and upward, who have grumbled against Me.NUM 14:30 'Surely you shall not come into the land in which I swore to settle you, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun.NUM 14:31 'Your children, however, whom you said would become a prey-- I will bring them in, and they shall know the land which you have rejected.Terry

thats a good arguement and its the first one ive heard thats actually backed up with scripture

I have read this entire topic. What I have noticed is that Deacon never left anything unanswered, and just fell off the forum. So he must have chose to leave in the site that there was no way in helping you understand.

What I do see, is alot of pride and misconceptions in your posts.

For One, calling Calvinism a "Doctrine of Demons". This is judgement in the highest degree. There are only two things we can do. Are battle is not with flesh and blood, but with Good and Evil.

Therefore we are either For or Against God. By you claiming that Calvinism is a Doctrine of demons, your also stating that anyone who follows it, is too also a demon and not of God. It's one or the other, for it cannot be both.

For you to so pridefully damn it, is very disrepectful and foolish IMO.

Especially since it is very apparent we are not defining Calvinism in the same context.

What I find very degrading is the TULIP itself. To take John Calvin's 30+ Volume Summary and belittle it down to a 5 letter acronym is disgraceful. How is that any different from an atheists who takes two scriptures and says, "See they contradict themselves" ?

Calvin was probably turning in his grave, to see his Life's Work dwindled down to an acronym.

Forget Calvin, forget Calvinism how about dealing with the root of the issue.

IMO, Deacon clearly explained himself and Calvinism, and what I saw form you time and time again was>

Ã¢â‚¬Å“He chose us in HimÃ¢â‚¬Â could easily be viewed ...(Your Opinion)

Perhaps, but it becomes even more difficult in light of 1 Tim 2

FRED SAYS: - BTW, I say this with the utmost respect but I hope you can see that the above formulation assumes beforehand that the Calvinist tenet of Ã¢â‚¬ËœIrresistible graceÃ¢â‚¬Â is true, so by itself it would not be a compelling argument for Calvinism. Anyway, this tenet doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t seem to fit well with verses such as these:

DEACON SAYS: - And with respect I reply that it has little to do with irrisistible grace. It has to do with who it is that makes the decisions in the Universe. Either God is absolutely soverign in all things or He is not God.

Then No response

Then you went on to tell Countic16,>

<< One thing to consider is that Calvinists far, far, more often have to explain away the simple >>

This is not true, for I have no problem understanding it, neither do countless others.

It should raise a red flag when scores of verses have to lose their plain meaning and instead be described as allegory or anthropomorphisms to accommodate thier chosen theology.

How does the same not apply to your belief ?

Calvin says we have choice, then says we never ever choose right? This is really a contradiction.

Where ? and How is this different from you saying God is all knowing, but God doesn't know. Is that not a contradiction ?

Again this has fallen into an Atheists type debate, where one says the Bible says the bible says the bible says, but never reads the bible.

So where is it in the writings of Calvin, that he contradicts himself ?

Already refuted in prior post

Those scriptures were not refuted.

So in this sense Calvinism is placing a restriction on God that is removing his Sovereignty

When you say that God CAN'T, you put a restriction on Him.

So how does one explain Isaiah 45:7? Easy, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a matter of semantics. Then you go into the " why take the hard (and false) route where you have to explain away scores, and scores, and scores of scripture "

What is this ? You had to use semantics to explain your belief, all he had to say wasnothing, and take it at face value, just as you claim we should do, but then you don't do at the same time.

an election almost always involved a personal choice. The person being elected has to make a free-will choice to be elected. Did George Bush become elected without having any say in the matter? If I recall, he announced he was running, he made commercials, and he appeared in debates.

As far as I know there is only ONE Bible. Are you trying to use a Wordly method, to explain or compare to the bible ?

Through the reading I find it very upsetting how easily you judge Calvinism, without ever quoting what John Calvin actually wrote. Again and Again the verses are being tossed back and forth for both sides yet you even started calling that poor kid, "The Calvinists". As if he was some sort of creature.

If Calvinism is the work of satan, than are you so confident to say that All Calvinist will be going to hell ?

Afterall, it's one way or another, but there is no grey area.

Calvinist will burn, or they will not. So what's your say ?

What's the root ? I say the root is either God knows everything or he doesn't.

Are there babies in Hell ?Who knows ! Is God not ruler of all ? Can God not do what He wills with his own creation ? It's not as if God is bound by the Bible, is that so hard to understand ?

All we do know is that God cannot be fully understood, for what mere man could possibly achieve such a task.

Personal note:

Mr. Fred, as a brother in Christ Jesus, I was happy in my heart when I found this site. Finally a place to rest my head in the comfort of Christians around me is what I thought, but from what I've seen in this topic, the air is defintely hostile. I'm not trying to judge you, but simply say that there is equal amount of scripture that must be "explained away" as you say for both sides. You completely lost me when you said, "God is all knowing, but God does not know". What was I supposed to think from that ? Does Calvinism say there are babies in Hell ? Well if you want it to, it will. It's no different than the way atheists treat the bible. It's easy to make the words mean what you want them to mean. Anyway, I'd like to know what volume, chapter, page from John Calvins summary you got that out of in the first place. Or do you so chose to use the TULIP. Where in scripture does it clarify that babies are or are not in hell ? How did that phrase even come about ?

I will continue to participate on your site if that's ok with you, but in my honest approach, I must say that I was completely offended by your comments towards my belief.

Not once did I claim to be a Calvinists, but you have labeled me so. I do not claim to be a Calvinists, but if my beliefs are based off of what i read in scripture, who are you to judge against me and say, that's not what God meant for me to understand from what I have read ?

I'm well aware of our age difference here, but I hope and pray you do not see this as some anal retentive young punk snapping back at you.

In love and peace

Dustin.

and its the first one ive heard thats actually backed up with scripture

For One, calling Calvinism a "Doctrine of Demons". This is judgement in the highest degree.

I agree it is judgment. DidnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t Jesus tell us to judge things rightly? (John 7:24) DidnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t Paul chide the Corinthians for not even judging the smallest of matters, and that we would judge the world and the angels? (1 Cor 6:2-3)

Therefore we are either For or Against God. By you claiming that Calvinism is a Doctrine of demons, your also stating that anyone who follows it, is too also a demon and not of God.

I stated no such thing, and to say otherwise is a complete non-sequitur that would require every single Christian to be absolutely perfect in their theology. You are taking this way too personal and need to step back, take a deep breath, and try to understand what I am saying. You are essentially claiming that every single secondary doctrine ever proposed has no demonic connection whatsoever. Do you really believe that? You claim to be a young earth creationist. Are you saying that you think it is impossible that Old Earth theology came from Satan? I happen to believe it too is demonic, which means I as a Christian have also believed in a demonically-influenced doctrine (I was OEC until age 30). I wouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢tÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ be surprised if most doctrines that prove to be wrong came from Satan. But that doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mean that a Christian who believes it is Ã¢â‚¬Å“not of GodÃ¢â‚¬Â. None of us are perfect.

FALSE is after all the opposite of TRUTH. If you told me that free-will is a doctrine of demons, I would tell you that if it proved to not be scriptural then you would probably be right. I believe we as believers will all die believing our fair share of FALSE doctrines, and there is no reason at all for us to be surprised to find out it was the prince of the world who influenced that doctrine. As I have stated before, I have many Christian friends, including Deacon, who IMO also happen to be wrong about Calvinism. That doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t make them any less Christian, and it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mean they personally have a demon in them.

What I find very degrading is the TULIP itself. To take John Calvin's 30+ Volume Summary and belittle it down to a 5 letter acronym is disgraceful. How is that any different from an atheists who takes two scriptures and says, "See they contradict themselves" ?

Calvin was probably turning in his grave, to see his Life's Work dwindled down to an acronym.

Forget Calvin, forget Calvinism how about dealing with the root of the issue.

I would like to discuss what YOU believe. Calvinism and TULIP are convenient labels that people generally understand which allow a framework for communication. If you do not hold any of the general statements I made about Calvinism, then please deal with those statements instead of attacking the labels.

but simply say that there is equal amount of scripture that must be "explained away" as you say for both sides.

That is why I asked you to keep score. I firmly believe that for every 1 verse that on the surface supports Calvinism, there are 10 that refute it. I also said that of the verses that seem to support Calvinism, free-will at the very least can accommodate it. On the other hand, Calvinism canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t accommodate many free-will verses, it has to re-write the verses completely to mean something totally different than their plain meaning.

Prov 8:8-9 All the words of my mouth are with righteousness; Nothing crooked or perverse is in them. They are all plain to him who understands

You completely lost me when you said, "God is all knowing, but God does not know".

I probably should not have referenced the Open Theology debate since it probably became a distraction, though I do think it is something Christians should at least consider, because I believe many aspects of it are very scripturally sound. And it does have some important inverse relationships with Calvinism.

What was I supposed to think from that ? Does Calvinism say there are babies in Hell ? Well if you want it to, it will. It's no different than the way atheists treat the bible. It's easy to make the words mean what you want them to mean. Anyway, I'd like to know what volume, chapter, page from John Calvins summary you got that out of in the first place. Or do you so chose to use the TULIP. Where in scripture does it clarify that babies are or are not in hell ? How did that phrase even come about ?

ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not my responsibility to find Calvin saying that aborted babies go to hell, any more than I have to find the Koran saying that Jewish babies should be killed. It's a consequence of the message - it is simply indisputable that Calvinism taken to it's "logical" conclusion teaches that certain aborted babies were chosen to suffer eternal tormnet in hell forever. You even agreed with this at one time. Are you changing your position on this? This is a sincere question. I truly hope you are reconsidering this!

As far as scripture and babies not in hell, there is not a single verse as far as I know of any babies going to hell, but we have provided you with two separate passages where babies are not in hell (an age of accountability). An additional passage is the death of DavidÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s child, where it is clear his child went to heaven.

I will continue to participate on your site if that's ok with you, but in my honest approach, I must say that I was completely offended by your comments towards my belief.

I certainly hope you continue to participate in the forum! To me we are trying to "Reason together" (Isaiah soemthing, to tired to look it up ). I realize it doesn't always seem that way, and I'm not always the best at following my own rules to keep the debate "civil". Just know that Christ was the most offensive person who ever lived, so it isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t necessarily a bad thing to offend, or be offended.

Not once did I claim to be a Calvinists, but you have labeled me so. I do not claim to be a Calvinists, but if my beliefs are based off of what i read in scripture, who are you to judge against me and say, that's not what God meant for me to understand from what I have read ?

I labeled you as such because that is what youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve portrayed yourself to be based on claims youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve made. ShouldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t I be honest about it? Am I doing you any service if I hem and haw around the truth and sugar coat everything? If I am wrong, please tell me how I am wrong. Believe me I have been wrong on many thigns many times before. But every indication is that you have stumbled into a belief that I believe is one of the worst doctrine a Christian can believe, so IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m obviously going to be passionate about it - I hope you can understand that. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not doing this to make myself feel better, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m convinced 100% that Calvinism is wrong. I know it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t seem like it but I would not be showing love if I didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t try to help other Christians recognize just how bad Calvinism is. Again donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢tÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ get me wrong, I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think the Christian who is a Calvinist is Ã¢â‚¬Å“badÃ¢â‚¬Â, in fact many Calvinists I know are great at spreading the gospel. I have a tremendous amount of repsect for Calvinists like the late D James Kennedy who through the Holy Spirit saved a lot more souls than I ever will. Why they spread the gospel though, I have no idea - if they really truly believed Calvinism they have no logical reason at all to do so.

Yours in Christ,FredPS. I canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t help myself, but there are some Calvinists I do think are bad, namely a guy named John Calvin. I really donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t want to turn this into a debate about CalvinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s character, but there is some decent evidence he was one nasty individual, especially if you didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t tow the Calvinist line. There is good evidence he played a role in one anti-Calvinist being burned at the stake. Good thing Calvin isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t alive today, or else I might be an Oscar Weiner on his Ducane grill.

My understanding is that man has freewill, pre-fall it was freewill which would determine whether or not man would serve God [how could love be satisfied with less] Adam took the freewill choice to rebel. Man is therefore living within the consequence of his freewill which we know is slavery to sin. So freewill is only to disobey and to turn away from God, it can never be the way back to God since it is the instrument to sin and not to righteousness. The way back to God must be to surrender this freewill to the Lordship of Christ. This we cannot do by freewill since submission to another is the opposite of freewill. This is the wretched state man is come to. That's where God steps in and reaches out to man in his helplessness and extends to us the hand of grace, now the parable of the prodigal son shows us how God uses man's importunity to reduce him to the place of where he will recognise both his dire need and the cause of it. The prodigal son [us all] are left with the decision of either dying in our freewill or repenting and returning to the father and throwing ourselves upon His grace. If the father was known to be merciless and without grace then where would the prodigal turn? even if he willed to within himself, he could return but but not be saved. So all is dependent upon God's grace and mercy and nothing is dependent upon our freewill.

My understanding is that man has freewill, pre-fall it was freewill which would determine whether or not man would serve God [how could love be satisfied with less] Adam took the freewill choice to rebel. Man is therefore living within the consequence of his freewill which we know is slavery to sin. So freewill is only to disobey and to turn away from God, it can never be the way back to God since it is the instrument to sin and not to righteousness. The way back to God must be to surrender this freewill to the Lordship of Christ. This we cannot do by freewill since submission to another is the opposite of freewill. This is the wretched state man is come to. That's where God steps in and reaches out to man in his helplessness and extends to us the hand of grace, now the parable of the prodigal son shows us how God uses man's importunity to reduce him to the place of where he will recognise both his dire need and the cause of it. The prodigal son [us all] are left with the decision of either dying in our freewill or repenting and returning to the father and throwing ourselves upon His grace. If the father was known to be merciless and without grace then where would the prodigal turn? even if he willed to within himself, he could return but but not be saved. So all is dependent upon God's grace and mercy and nothing is dependent upon our freewill.

It's like the saying that to me sums up the free will of God:

If you love something you let it go. If it returns, it's yours. If it don't, it never was.

1) Let it go means you give them a choice.2) If they choose you then by choice they become part of you.3) And if they choose something else, then by choice they are not a part of you.

True love allows choice because true love is when two people chose on another.

If you love something you let it go. If it returns, it's yours. If it don't, it never was.

1) Let it go means you give them a choice.2) If they choose you then by choice they become part of you.3) And if they choose something else, then by choice they are not a part of you.

True love allows choice because true love is when two people chose on another.

*But we bear in mind Jesu's words "I chose you, you did not choose me" I know in my own case this is so, and certainly I did not choose the cross. To me perhaps the greatest exponent of freewill was the honourable John Wesley, and yet you do not find a trace of it in his own personal testimony. He did choose to serve God as indeed did St Paul but their service was all wrong until they had their marvellous encounters, Paul on the way to Damascus, Wesley at Aldersgate. I believe in freewill but not as a means unto salvation. Foreknowledge and predestination comes about in the way God has so constituted man with this terrible need [it is depicted in the story of the prodigal son in natural terms] When I kneeled to recieve Christ as my Lord to all appearances I was making a choice but actually The Holy Spirit was so revealing Christ to me and so working in my heart that there was truly only one thing to do and that was choose Him. I will ever be thankful that this was so for my choosing would be a fickle thing whereas His choice is eternal and reliable. All praise and glory to Him.